Allowed

Debaraj Mishra v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC2 Dec 2024WP(C)/27637/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Selection of the petitioner to the post of Jogana Sahayaka was cancelled on residence grounds. The Court held that the uncancelled Tahasildar residential certificate showing him as resident of Malijubang established residence, quashed the cancellation order, and directed appointment within six weeks if no legal impediment exists.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-5 cancellation order quashed; OP No.3 directed to absorb petitioner to Jogana Sahayaka post within six weeks, subject to no legal impediment; no costs.

Debaraj Mishra Vs State and Ors. — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) NO.27637 of 2013

¶3

(In the matter of application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India).

¶4

Debaraj Mishra … Petitioner

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Orissa and others … Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. M. Chand, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Rout, ASC

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

¶9

DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:02.12.2024(ORAL)

¶10

G. Satapathy, J.

¶11

1. This writ petition by the petitioner seeks to quash the impugned order dated 18.11.2013 passed by the BDO, Lanjigarh under Annexure-5 by which the selection of the petitioner to the post of Jogana Sahayaka of Malijubang Gramya Panchayat has been cancelled and consequently, to give appointment to the petitioner for the said post in terms of advertisement dated 04.06.2012 issued under Annexure-1.

¶12

WP(C) No.27637 of 2013

¶13

Page 1 of 7

¶14

2. The substantial facts as involved in this

¶15

case is that the BDO, Lanjigarh vide Annexure-1 issued an advertisement inviting application from eligible candidates to apply for the post of Jogana Sahayaka and pursuant to such advertisement, the petitioner along with others applied for the post. Accordingly, the petitioner was solely selected for the post vide Annexure-2 and objection was invited from the general public of the locality with regard to selection of the petitioner, but subsequently, on the objection of some person, the selection of the petitioner was cancelled by Annexure-5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court with this writ petition.

¶16

3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Manas Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner by taking this Court though Annexures-3 and 4 submits that not only the petitioner has landed property in the locality i.e. Malijubang Gramya Panchayat, but also he is a resident of such Panchayat and, thereby, the so called disqualification of the petitioner for being not a resident of Malijubang is afterthought, imaginary and motivated

¶17

WP(C) No.27637 of 2013

¶18

Page 2 of 7

¶19

and thereby, the cancellation of selection of the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal and is not inconsonance with the advertisement. Mr. Chand under aforesaid submission prays to quash the impugned order under Annexure-5 by directing OP No.3 to issue order of appointment in favour of the petitioner for the post of Jogana Sahayaka.

¶20

4. On the contrary, Mr. S.K. Rout, learned ASC by taking this Court through Annexure-C/3 to the counter affidavit submits that not only the petitioner is the resident of Patrabasa, but also his selection to the post is not inconformity with the advertisement and thereby, the petitioner’s selection has been rightly cancelled. Further, Mr. Rout submits that although the petitioner is having some residential and agricultural land in village Malijubang, but that is not sufficient to say that the petitioner is a resident of Malijubang, since the petitioner is permanent resident of Patrabasa and only looking after their agricultural work in village Malijubang. On the aforesaid submission, Mr. Rout prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶21

WP(C) No.27637 of 2013 Page 3 of 7

¶22

5. After having considered the rival

¶23

submissions upon perusal of record, there appears no dispute about the selection of the petitioner for the post of Jogana Sahayaka, but the only dispute is with regard to the residence of the petitioner not in terms of the advertisement which stipulates that the candidate should be a permanent resident of such Panchayat in which he is required to be appointed as such. In this writ petition, the petitioner in support of his claim has filed the residential certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Lanjigarh vide Annexure-3, wherein he has been described as a resident of “Malijubang”. Further, the Tahasildar, Kalampur vide Letter No.6283 dated 18.09.2013 addressed to the BDO, Lanjigarh has reported that the petitioner resides in village Patrabasa to assist his elder brother Bhojaraj Mishra, but he stays in Malijubang for looking after the agricultural work. Further, in Annexure-M/3 to the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner being an unmarried person stays in village Malijubang. The voter lists as furnished by the petitioner and the State, reveal that the

¶24

WP(C) No.27637 of 2013

¶25

Page 4 of 7

¶26

petitioner is the voter of both “Malijubang” and “Patrabasa”.

¶27

6. Further, Annexure-E/3 to the counter affidavit reveals that the petitioner and his elder brother were staying in village Malijubang long back, but they are staying in village Patrabasa for the purpose of education, however, they are regularly visiting to Malijubang for their agricultural work. It is also not in dispute that the selection of the petitioner was cancelled due to allegation made by one Rama Chandra Mundachhina under Annexure-C/3, wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner was staying around 25 years back in village Malijubang, but right now they are staying at village Patrabasa. True it is that the petitioner is having land in both the villages in Malijubang and Patrabasa and he is also a voter of both the Gram Panchayats, but the State Government has issued residential certificate to the petitioner by showing him as a resident of Malijubang, which has not yet been cancelled and thereby, for all the purpose he

¶28

is a resident of Malijubang. Merely because a person is

¶29

WP(C) No.27637 of 2013 Page 5 of 7

¶30

having some extra land in a different village, he cannot be said to be not the resident of that village in which he is staying by having his agricultural land. In the situation and facts of the case, it cannot be said that the petitioner is a resident of Patrabasa, especially when the residential certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Lanjigarh showing the petitioner to be a resident of Malijubang. None appears for the intervener petitioner, although an intervention application has been filed in this case in IA No.3655 of 2022 and thereby, the intervention application has not been considered.

¶31

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the rival submissions keeping in view the available materials placed on record and regard being had to the residential certificate issued by Tahasildar to the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the cancellation of the selection of the petitioner for want of residence proof is contrary and illegal as well as unsustainable in the eye of law. Thus, Annexure-5 WP(C) No.27637 of 2013 Page 6 of 7

¶32

WP(C) No.27637 of 2013

¶33

being contrary to facts and law is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed.

¶34

8. In the result, the writ petition stands

¶35

allowed on contest, but in the circumstance, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the impugned order of cancellation of selection of the petitioner under Annexure-5 is hereby quashed and the authority concerned-cum-OPNo.3 is hereby directed to absorb the petitioner to the post Joagana Sahayaka, if there is no other legal impediment, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶36

(G. Satapathy) Judge

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMAL Designation: Jr.Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 03-Dec-2024 10:56:52

¶39

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 2^nd day of December, 2024/Subhasmita

¶40

WP(C) No.27637 of 2013 Page 7 of 7

Debaraj Mishra v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Debaraj Mishra v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil @ Lala Nag Vs State of Odisha

Rabi Hantal@Vanthala Ravi Vs State of Odisha

Bijaya Kumar Udayasingh Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Sanjaya Kumar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Rabindra Sahu @ Rabindra Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Priyabrata Das Vs State of Odisha